Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Littlejohn · 06-11-2011, 12:28 PM

Allow me to clarify, for what concerns the controversy that arose around the figure of Mark and his Gospel, that the real person, which was credited in a pseudo-epigraphical way the gospel of the same name, had nothing to do with the catholic-christianity, because he was a pagan (perhaps with some sympathy for Judaism) and remained so until his death.

Mark was, in historical reality, the Roman official who picked up the confession of Simon Peter (now euphemistically called 'Kerygma Petrou': Preaching of Peter, sic!), who was subjected to torture(*) after his arrest, because of his attempt to kill Simon Magus: an attempt which he accomplished with his murderous gang, almost certainly the same with which massacred the couple Ananias and Sapphira. (see Acts of the Apostles)

In addition to Simon Magus and of its principals to assassinate him (almost certainly senatorial patricians), Peter also spoke of Jesus, known by the Romans with a name other than his anagraphical name and by attribute 'Chrestos' (see Suetonius). With the attribute 'IASOUS / IESOUS ' (ie 'healer') Jesus became known in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor, especially in the city of Ephesus. In Rome, however, this attribute was unknown, because not used by Jesus. This is one of the reasons why, apparently, it seems that the Roman historians do not speak of him ...

Mark archived the material collected without any order, since there was no reason for do it and deposited it in the imperial archives, where he remained until 138-140, when it was decided to use it for the composition of the prototype of the first catholic-christian gospel of history : Namely, the gospel 'second' Mark ...

(*) - patristic testimonies exist concerning it.

Littlejohn

.

ApostateAbe · 06-11-2011, 02:11 PM

I started a thread arguing for the gospels as Greco-Roman biographies here:

Bart Ehrman on the genre of the gospels (Greco-Roman biogragraphies) and Neil Godfrey

Littlejohn · 06-11-2011, 04:26 PM

Errata corrige

Quote:

«..Mark archived the material collected without any order, since there was no reason for do it and deposited it in the imperial archives, where he remained until 138-140, when it was decided to use it for the composition of the prototype of the first catholic-christian gospel of history : Namely, the gospel 'second' Mark ...»
.

«..where he remained until 138-140..»

Obviously, "..where IT remained.."

Sorry...

Littlejohn

.

Doug Shaver · 06-12-2011, 06:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK. Do you think that the hypothesis that Mark is fiction more likely than the hypothesis that Mark is a Grecco-Roman biography?

If I thought it was a biography, I would certainly assume it was Greco-Roman.

That I believe it is fiction sort of implies that I must think that hypothesis more likely than the alternative.

ApostateAbe · 06-12-2011, 06:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

OK. Do you think that the hypothesis that Mark is fiction more likely than the hypothesis that Mark is a Grecco-Roman biography?

If I thought it was a biography, I would certainly assume it was Greco-Roman.

That I believe it is fiction sort of implies that I must think that hypothesis more likely than the alternative.

Yes, that's right.

06-11-2011, 12:28 PM	#91
Littlejohn Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: Italy Posts: 708	About Mark and his Gospel ... Allow me to clarify, for what concerns the controversy that arose around the figure of Mark and his Gospel, that the real person, which was credited in a pseudo-epigraphical way the gospel of the same name, had nothing to do with the catholic-christianity, because he was a pagan (perhaps with some sympathy for Judaism) and remained so until his death. Mark was, in historical reality, the Roman official who picked up the confession of Simon Peter (now euphemistically called 'Kerygma Petrou': Preaching of Peter, sic!), who was subjected to torture() after his arrest, because of his attempt to kill Simon Magus: an attempt which he accomplished with his murderous gang, almost certainly the same with which massacred the couple Ananias and Sapphira. (see Acts of the Apostles) In addition to Simon Magus and of its principals to assassinate him (almost certainly senatorial patricians), Peter also spoke of Jesus, known by the Romans with a name other than his anagraphical name and by attribute 'Chrestos' (see Suetonius). With the attribute 'IASOUS / IESOUS ' (ie 'healer') Jesus became known in the Roman provinces of Asia Minor, especially in the city of Ephesus. In Rome, however, this attribute was unknown, because not used by Jesus. This is one of the reasons why, apparently, it seems that the Roman historians do not speak of him ... Mark archived the material collected without any order, since there was no reason for do it and deposited it in the imperial archives, where he remained until 138-140, when it was decided to use it for the composition of the prototype of the first catholic-christian gospel of history : Namely, the gospel 'second' Mark ... () - patristic testimonies exist concerning it. Littlejohn .

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-11-2011, 02:11 PM	#92
ApostateAbe Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: MT Posts: 10,656	I started a thread arguing for the gospels as Greco-Roman biographies here: Bart Ehrman on the genre of the gospels (Greco-Roman biogragraphies) and Neil Godfrey

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.